On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 13:27 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote:
On Sun, 2013-07-14 at 19:47 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
Huh? The maintainer fixed the description and I just gave it the last
+1 it needed to autopush stable. This worked exactly like it was
supposed to.
It was at -2 to start
On Fri, 2013-07-05 at 11:59 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Getting back on topic, I propose the wiki page be modified to say that
karma only depends on whether the package update works or not,
irrespective of the update description. A 0 karma comment can be
dropped, but not a -1.
Another instance:
I hope we can have some enhancements in Bodhi 2.0.
Such as add a single option for such case.
I don't want to be bothered by such nosense karma anymore, too.
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
On Jul 14, 2013 6:21 PM, Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 2013-07-05 at 11:59 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote: Getting back on
topic, I propose the wiki page be modified to say that karma only
depends on whether the package update works or not, irrespective of the
update
On Sun, 2013-07-14 at 19:47 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
Huh? The maintainer fixed the description and I just gave it the last
+1 it needed to autopush stable. This worked exactly like it was
supposed to.
It was at -2 to start with. One more negative would've un-pushed a
perfectly good
On 07/04/2013 01:36 PM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
I've run into a few updates that have been given negative karma because
they were missing update descriptions.
How does a reporter supposed to know which bugs are fixed if there is no
update description?
JBG
--
test mailing list
On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 14:51 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
How does a reporter supposed to know which bugs are fixed if there is
no
update description?
One can specify what bugs an update fixes in Bodhi. These bugs are
closed when the update goes stable, and these bugs are listed both in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 04/07/2013 17:09, Ankur Sinha a écrit :
On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 14:51 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
How does a reporter supposed to know which bugs are fixed if
there is no update description?
One can specify what bugs an update fixes in
On 4 July 2013 14:36, Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com wrote:
I hardly think an update should be given negative karma for this.
Sure it should, the update is defective. The description isn't optional.
Richard.
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
Well, I hate writing descriptions for new package.
But this catanzaro still gave me -1 to the update.
You can email me with the issue and I can edit, but -1 is not good.
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Well, I hate writing descriptions for new package.
But this catanzaro still gave me -1 to the update.
You can email me with the issue and I can edit, but -1 is not good.
Completely agree
Sure it should, the update is defective. The description isn't optional
it should, only when the bug fixed
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 00:09:54 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
Well, I hate writing descriptions for new package.
Hmmm ... the definition of new package is different.
It refers to a new package approved during package review. ;-)
For an ordinary update you refer to, you should try to sum up the
On 2013-07-04 6:36, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Hi,
I've run into a few updates that have been given negative karma because
they were missing update descriptions. While I understand that
maintainers should provide proper update messages, I hardly think an
update should be given negative karma for this.
On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 14:45 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On 2013-07-04 6:36, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Hi,
snippity
This is the result of a currently-active thread on devel@:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-June/184641.html
On Fri, 2013-07-05 at 11:26 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote:
I have no idea how easy or difficult it is to implement this, but I
can
open a ticket with infra and at least get their take on it.
Looks like something similar has already been requested:
https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/718
--
On Fri, 2013-07-05 at 11:47 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Looks like something similar has already been requested:
https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/718
Getting back on topic, I propose the wiki page be modified to say that
karma only depends on whether the package update works or not,
16 matches
Mail list logo
